Do You Agree with This Type of Police Behavior?

no no no no NO NO NO NO!!!
i am utterly horrified at all the 'ends justify the means' people.
i can be glad they caught the guy and still absolutely positively say the police acted incorrectly and illegally. 'there's a bad guy in the area' means they can cordon off and search the area, but to handcuff EVERYBODY, then have their cars searched?
NO!
that is NOT a correct application of 'probable cause.'
i'm with benjamin franklin. ''it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."
you do NOT treat innocent citizens like criminals just in case. the presumption of innocence (the underlying philosophy which makes us a great nation) should still mean something in america. this is not the middle east.
khairete
S.

It was 100% appropriate.
They said they were "virtually certain" that an ARMED, fleeing bank robber was in 1 of 20 vehicles headed for an intersection. He was, as was his mask and weapon. Oh--and not all passengers and drivers were handcuffed...just some.

They had to think and act fast. They did. It paid off.

Oh--not O. of the motorists has lodged a complaint.

We don't live in a police state so no, this was inappropriate to say the least. The means do not justify the end and giving people the ability to say 'no' hardly means they will say 'no.' Average people are uncomfortable with the police and will go along even if they don't want to. The police darn well know this and took advantage of it. I wonder if folks would have said well done if the police had never apprehended the suspect. In my opinion the response remains the same regardless of the outcome - those are actions of a totalitarian police force not a democratic state. Freedoms are relinquished one at a time until the government finally reaches one you don’t want to give up. By then you hardly have a leg to stand on, though.

Excellent police work - they caught the guy!
_____________________________________
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

keyword - Unreasonable.

Was an hour or two being detained "unreasonable"? Most police have the authority to lock you up for 20-40 hours without a charge. 2 hours is pretty reasonable - especially when balanced against the crime which likely involved a weapon.

Oh - and all the stopped motorists gave permission. So are you just pissed of on behalf of the people not involved and without all the facts?

__________________________________________
Presumption of innocence is the standard in Court - not in police work.

____________________________________
No permission was needed for the handcuffs - it was what is called a Terry stop. See answer #2 - detention
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being...

The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of "probable cause" to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. [quoted from above linked site]

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being...

How was it unreasonable? They had probable cause.

I do understand it would be upsetting to have it happen to you but I have to wonder wouldn't it be more upsetting to be robbed at gunpoint? The guy robbed a bank at gunpoint! How do you think any kids, and their parents, in that bank felt?

They probably could have done it better but they really didn't have time to sort it out.

After reading your what happened: how do you know they didn't handcuff people to keep them from wandering around, possibly becoming a hostage. He was armed, remember? They may very well have been handcuffed for their protection. We don't know the whole story, only the bits being reported on so that people will read.

Ben Franklin was speaking of the court system, not the police in that quote.

Well, it worked.

I understand your gripe, but I see why they did this. The police felt the tip was "credible." Meaning, enough of a respectable tip to act right away. So, they have people get out of the car to search...and the suspect runs away, or has a concealed weapon, or gets into another car and takes off with a family inside, etc. That's why they cuff. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I see the line of reasoning. They were looking for an armed, violent criminal. (That has nothing to lose, at this point. One of the most dangerous criminals for innocent bystanders.) This was done as much for protecting the people around, as it was apprehending the guy.

ETA: I just googled. I read that they tracked, followed, and KNEW the guy was somewhere in the intersection. Hence, why they took this so seriously. Being not just a tip and an actual fact makes it a bit more clear. They actually had to ambush the intersection, and felt it was the only way to keep control, when they KNEW the guy was in the intersection with at least one gun. Yes, I agree with the behavior in this instance.

Umm...How is tracking the man to the intersection, and knowing he was there...not probable cause?? And, they DO in fact have "carte blanche" when they know the location of an armed criminal running from a federal felony.

A.- What was the purpose of your "question?" Do you want opinions, or do you want to rant at us, until we all agree with you?

Probable Cause
Exigent Circumstance
Consent

They had all 3. They only needed 1. Furthermore, it was conducted in such a manner that no one THERE objected, abstained, or complained.

Exigent Circumstance =
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]

1 ^ People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976

2 ^ United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984

Khazle, I'm not sure where you got that information, but it's incorrect about not being allowed to handcuff someone unless they're under arrest. As other's have already replied, most of the time handcuffs are used to keep a suspect safe, or the officers themselves.

Until we live in a society where there is no crime, police will always take the brunt of people hating them & the way they go about things. They're ok with that because they know how to do their jobs to keep you & everyone else safe.

ETA~~For everyone all up in arms about the police searching the vehicles, it is rather clearly stated that every vehicle owner was specifically asked permission to have their car searched & granted permission. This would fall into the very simple category of 'just say no' if it was you in the situation, correct?

It wasn't pretty and it wasn't perfect - but they caught the bad guy - they had probable cause - a good/solid tip....which means they had every legal right to detain...

But alas we live in a litigious society - so I'm sure there will be lawyers contacting these people who were detained to sue the county and the state and get money....

I would have a FIT if police did this to me! I also work for a large bank, and we love catching bank robbers, but to detain me for up to two hours -IN HANDCUFFS!?!?! Oh HELL no! My time, my dignity and my personal rights are far more important. Those people saying the ends justified the means will most likely find themselves living one day in a world where they just simply don't understand why they no longer have choices and rights -but they're "safe" -oh so "safe."

One of the most important quotes EVER made that goes to the core of what this country was founded on and should be about is the one from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The police behavior was inappropriate and probably was illegal. It is my understanding that you cannot be handcuffed unless you are under arrest, or are displaying disorderly conduct. It must have been humiliating to have to wear handcuffs in public for those innocent people!

Unless the police physically hurt me, I'd have been happy to help. And sounds like the handcuffs were brief given once their cars were searched and nothing was found, they were uncuffed. So I'm fine with it and if I had kids with me, I'd have said it was exciting and we were doing our civic duty helping out.

They caught the bad guy.
What would you have done?
What if that would have been your purse, and you had important stuff in it, and you know the guy jumped into a car in the intersection and didnt know which car..... wouldnt you love for the cops to check ALL of them for you?
If I had kids or granny in the car, I'm sure I would have used it as an adventure of some sort and turn it positive and not negative.
Cops have a hard job, and it's getting harder.

So everyone on the road that day was presumed guilty of bank robbery until they were proven innocent? Nice!
Makes me feel a lot safer right away...

I am really surprised at some of the answers you're getting. "It worked!" So the end justifies the means, I guess.

I don't know enough about constitutional law to know whether this behavior was acceptable, so I can't say. But I don't think the, "Well, we got him!" argument makes something legal.

I'm glad they caught the suspect, but I believe they could have caught him or her another way. The reason we have a justice system that makes a person innocent until proven guilty, instead of the opposite, is because we don't want a military regime or dictatorship in power and our prisons full of innocent people.

And THAT is why what the police did is actually illegal.

Also, this was not a reasonable search. Perhaps the police would rather have to go to court and be fined for their behavior and catch the suspect, I don't know. But you are right about this being against our constitutional rights.

Dawn

A.,
yes,I do agree.It does seem like a big violation,scary for children and I would not like to have been involved,but they have caught a serial killer the exact same way,its actually a very smart move on their part.Id rather that then standing in a bank and some looser robbing it!!!!!Especially with one of my kids.Plus,like you said,they caught the person(very last car,but they did!!!!!)

I Would have probably been like what the hell, the handcuffed part is to keep the officers safe. Its not like they slammed everyone against the hood of their cars or the ground and were really rough with them. They dont know you, they dont know what your motives are. I would have obliged as long as they explained to me what was going on and consented. Better to catch the guy than let him go on to commit more crimes and if it takes 2 hours out of my day so be it. The caught the guy who was armed and you are concerned about being handcuffed? And if children were present which I am sure they were the cops probably explained what was going on. You are portraying them as uncivil and using excessive force.

OMG, that is SO incredibly wrong on so many levels...

Stopping the cars and searching? Fine. It's actually a pretty good idea!

Handcuffs for everybody? Umm NO.

It seems to me that the police investigated within a very specific set of parameters. They only searched people/cars that were at that specific intersection based on what they determined to be a reliable tip. Clearly, it was reliable enough in that they found the suspect within the set parameters.

It sounds as if their split-second decision on how to handle the situation was very methodical so as not to infringe on people's rights nor their busy, busy day. Go to the car, get people to step out, cuff them in case they were the perp in order to keep everyone safe in the moment while searching the car, and then immediately release when the car check was done. It doesn't sound at all like they kept anyone there once their car was checked. It doesn't as if anyone was traumatized. Even children. I imagine that how any children reacted would have a lot to do with how the parents responded to the situation and how the police were behaving. I'm guessing that the police weren't waving batons and guns at people to force them out of their cars, threatening them.

It's important to note, not ignore, that every single person granted permission and not one single person complained. Not one single person was accused or assumed to be guilty. They were part of an investigation.

If you came upon a police barricade checking cars for Amber Alerts, would you refuse because you ASSUMED they were calling you a kidnapper and think you're guilty of kidnapping?

If you come upon a police check point for seatbelts do you refuse to stop for the check even if your seatbelt is on?

If a neighbor's house was broken into, and police come to your door to ask if you know anything about the incident, do you refuse to answer questions because you're afraid they're insinuating you had something to do with it?

Well I can see why they did this...now you wanna hear a not so great story about the police I could tell you what happened to me 3 years ago when I purchase a van...needless to say my two year old was scared to death, and I didnt' get home in time to get my 4 year old off the bus. It was a crappy day all because my van hadn't been registered in over a year and they thought I stole it...The worst part is I had purchased it three days prior and all the paperwork was on my desk at home which was only a block away...i even asked if they would just take my keys and go look! But nope :(

I cannot believe that they actually HANDCUFFED innocent people! If the police ever want to handcuff me, they had damn well better be absolutely positive that I am guilty of a crime. I cannot believe that some folks here are absolutely OK with treating EVERYONE as a criminal here. This is completely wrong!

I wouldn't judge a story by the article. It may or may not have happened the way it was reported. Reporters do not have access to all the details of the situation that law enforcement does. I have personally experienced situations where what was reported in the article was pretty misleading. An article led readers to believe that someone in my family was killed in an accident or at least sustained injuries requiring hospitalization when that was not the truth at all. All this to say you can never really can judge people and/or their actions until you have walked in their shoes and know all the details. :)

After 9-11 and the Patriot Act I think the Bill of Rights is basically a void document. I do not necessarilly agree with that but it's the way it is.

I too would have been angry and scared if I had been hauled out of my car, handcuffed, and my car searched. I'm the type who would have had to peeeeee and I can't imagine trying to convince a police officer to let me loose so I could go to the bathroom.

At least we haven't had another terrrorist attack in American soil in almost 11 years.----So I can handle the inconvience.